21 July 2014 4:28 PM

A Plea for Restraint on the Ukraine Tragedy

A new plea for restraint, thought and justice on the Ukrainian tragedy.

What follows is necessarily long. It is, among other things, a detailed response to many attacks made on my article about the MH17 horror yesterday. I don’t expect that the people who most need to read it will do so. But it is here for anyone who is really interested.

I’ll begin with an excerpt from ‘Alice in Wonderland’ of which I grow fonder and fonder as the years go by :

‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’

‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

‘I won’t!’ said Alice.

‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.’

I’ll begin with the things my detractors and slanderers will ignore. Here and on Twitter, there’s been a distressing number of people grossly oversimplifying my carefully-argued article .E.g. (these are rough summaries, I can’t be bothered to trawl through the slurry for the exact wordings) : ‘Peter Hitchens says EU is responsible for MH17 shootdown’ , ‘Go and work for RT where you belong!’ or curious claims that I have just said what I say because I am in the pay of Russia, or to play a game. Or I am something called a ‘contrarian’, who takes up contrary positions for the sake of it.

None of this is true.

I write and speak what I believe to be true.

I try when I do so to overcome any fear of being in a minority, or of being howled down by a conformist mob. It is a human duty to refuse to be cowed by mobs, real or electronic.

But I must admit the experience of being slandered, interrogated as if I were a defendant at a show-trial, distorted and abused, simply for urging caution in face of what might become a rush for war, is unpleasant and dispiriting. After an hour or so of tangling with it on Twitter yesterday afternoon (at one stage I was actually accused by one of these twisters of excusing the killings of such brave journalists as Anna Politkovskaya), I went off to Evensong at Oxford Cathedral, partly to pray for the souls of my attackers (though with no very great hope of success).

Our Strange Willingness to be Rushed into War

Had we not been in the midst of two major outbreaks of tension (The Ukraine and Gaza, where I repeat that I think the Israeli attack is both morally wrong and a severe political mistake), I had planned today to review a new book by Douglas Newton ‘The Darkest Days – the truth behind Britain’s rush to war 1914’ ,published by Verso tomorrow (22nd July), £20.

Professor Newton’s book has already been attacked in at least one review, and I’m not equipped to judge its historical scholarship, as I’m no specialist in this field. But it is in step with Barbara Tuchman’s superb ‘The Guns of August’ in showing how a small and determined group, headed by Henry Wilson, secretly committed Britain to an unwritten but binding military alliance with France in the years before 1914.

Some People Really do Want Wars to Start

This was kept secret from the Cabinet and Parliament, who were falsely told that no such commitment existed, when in fact there were detailed plans for Anglo-French naval co-operation and for the deployment of British troops in France.

Did you know that four members of Asquith’s Cabinet actually resigned in protest at moves towards war in the days before the actual declaration? Few do. Herbert Asquith and Edward Grey successfully persuaded them to keep their resignations secret, and persuaded some but not all of them to return to government. John Burns and John Morley emerge as men of some principle, and their warnings against the danger of such a war are terrifyingly prophetic. Ramsay Macdonald, whom I had previously rather despised, was not in government but led the Labour Party at that time. He also emerges as a courageous and almost lone opponent of war during the wretched, powerless, misinformed, overwrought, propagandized and brief debate which the House of Commons was allowed before the slaughter began. David Lloyd George, by contrast, shows up as a complete weathercock, swinging in the wind.

It is doubtful if the radicals could have stopped the war, as the Tories were only too keen to start it, and would readily have formed a Coalition with pro-war Liberals, including Winston Churchill (then of course a Liberal), whose unilateral commitment of the Royal Navy to war stations deepened our commitment to France and made war more likely.

Emotional pretexts for war are seldom the real reason for it

Newton is also adamant that war was already decided upon *before* Germany invaded Belgium (it was a pretext invented later) , that Britain was absolutely not treaty-bound to aid Belgium, and that the British government tried very hard to avoid all mention that its alliance with France also meant an alliance with Tsarist Russia, regarded by right-thinking people of the time as a monstrous tyranny, suppurating with anti-Semitism and corruption.

I fear that Newton gives too much credence and importance to German efforts to keep Britain out , as I am sure Germany did want war with Russia, sure that Germany knew this must mean war with France as well, and I suspect that Germany had always planned to attack through Belgium and would never have been diverted from it. What is interesting about this period, though is that the famous Anglo-German naval race had in fact ended with a British victory some years before 1914, and was not really an issue any more.

And we all know that much (though not all) of the atrocity reports emerging from Belgium in August 1914 was false, and exaggerated - and that compared with what was to come in ‘legitimate’ warfare conducted by both sides, it was quite minor.

I’m also in the midst of a wonderful work by Adam Tooze (The Deluge, the Great War and the Remaking of the Global Order: Allen Lane £30) , a refreshing departure from the standard-issue account, concentrating on the way in which 1914 transferred power from Britain to the USA, and providing details about the cost and financing of the war which are similar to the little-known things I discussed in my recent Radio 4 programme, about the transfer of gold across the Atlantic and the financial humiliation of the British Empire by Washington in 1940). Professor Tooze’s account of the Washington Naval Treaty is also lucid and brutal.

What I think about MH17

So, with all this in mind, I turn sadly to the horrors of Grabovo, the wreckage, the bodies of the dead, the claim and counter claim.

Those who have not read my column item on the subject, published on Sunday , are urged to do so here

It does not excuse the action. It does not say ‘the EU caused the shootdown’. It explains the context, which is undeclared war between two major European power blocs, and which was indubitably and indisputably started by the EU, in the knowledge that its action was provocative.

How did this dispute become violent?

Russia’s long-term alarm about the policy of NATO expansion up to its borders was articulated more than seven years ago in this speech by Mr Putin, in language of extraordinary bluntness. It is fair to say that nobody in the ‘West’ paid any attention.

I should also point out that serious anti-Putin commentators, such as Michael Mosbacher in a recent edition of Standpoint magazine, do not pretend that the EU’s move into Ukraine, through the ‘Association Agreement’ is non-political:

‘Much more than a trade agreement’

‘The critics are right that the Association Agreement is much more than a free-trade agreement. In Article Seven it commits Ukraine to "promote gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policy". Article Ten of the agreement provides for "increasing the participation of Ukraine in EU-led civilian and military crisis management operations" and exploring the potential of military-technological cooperation.

He adds:

'The agreement may indeed undermine Ukrainian sovereignty, but surely is nothing compared to the Russian-dominated Eurasian Customs Union. While the latter may on paper be nothing more than a customs union does anyone seriously believe that it will remain as such? Has Putin's aggression in Ukraine not rather proven the point that Ukrainian sovereignty is not high on his list of priorities?’

(You can find the full context in the third section of the article here

I agree with Mr Mosbacher that the Eurasian Customs Union is also political as well as economic. Of course it is. This is a military-political struggle, which was fought without bloodshed through diplomacy and politics until President Viktor Yanukovych rejected the Association Agreement on 29th November (proposing instead a three-way commission of Ukraine, EU and Russia which would have left Ukraine as neutral or non-aligned between the blocs).

At that point Clausewitz stepped in, and war climbed out of its gory, bone-heaped cave, to continue policy by other means. But it was a postmodern war, so a lot of people have yet to recognize it as such, expecting something out of 'War Picture Library'.

A common misconception

Putin, by the way, loathes Yanukovych, who angered him, by squeezing billions of roubles out of him in tough negotiations over Russian rights in the naval base at Sevastopol, a few months before. The idea that Yanukovych was Putin’s pet does not stand up to examination.

It was at that point that huge numbers of people suddenly allegedly discovered that they could no longer stomach the corruption which has in fact been a feature of Ukrainian public life since that country broke away from the USSR (and indeed before then) and the ‘Euromaidan’ protests began, which were not free of violence and intimidation, which were extra-constitutional, which were openly supported by American and EU political and official figures including Senator John McCain, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (with her bags of bread and biscuits), by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and by Guido Westerwelle, former Foreign Minister of Germany.

Coincidence theory – and a Miracle on the Dnieper

Quite why there should have been this spontaneous eruption of discontent at Ukraine’s corrupt and undemocratic nature, which had gone on so long with so little protest before and since the (equally coincidental) ‘Orange Revolution’ of 2004 and 2005, must be a matter for coincidence theorists to resolve. Presumably it has now died down because Petro Poroshenko’s government has miraculously solved the problem of Ukrainian corruption. Or perhaps there is another explanation.

WE don’t do this, of course

It is of course quite unknown for the governments of Western countries to intervene in the internal politics of nations in which they have interests, so we can rule out any connection between the desires of those governments and the appearance of well-organised demonstrations against a President who was frustrating a EU attempt to gather Ukraine into its sphere of influence.

‘I was out there to interact with our Ukrainian partners and friends. I had the opportunity to walk through the streets of Kiev and also go to Maidan Square and see the memorials to those Ukrainians trying to find liberty and freedom for their people.’

Mr Brennan said that the situation in Ukraine is ‘something that needs to be addressed” and insisted that the US wants “the Ukrainian people to have their ability to define their future.’

‘We here at the CIA can work with our partners in Ukraine and other areas to give them the information, the capabilities that they need in order to bring security and stability back to their country.’

WE don’t do that either, but THEY do

In recent months, doubtless coincidentally, Ukraine’s ill-equipped, poorly trained and largely feeble armed forces have begun to put up much more of a fight in their struggle against the pro-Russian militias which have undoubtedly been encouraged and assisted by Moscow, almost certainly via Russia’s military intelligence arm, the GRU.

Constitutions? Who cares about them? We’re democrats!

Last winter’s mob pressure, uncritically backed by Western media, led to the unlawful overthrow of President Yanukovych, who was then removed without resort to the provisions on impeachment in the Ukrainian constitution, and replaced by a government willing to sign the Association Agreement.

Violence and lawlessness beget violence and lawlessness – as usual

From these violent and lawless events date the sometimes violent and undoubtedly lawless Russian actions, including seizure of Crimea and encouragement of secessionists in eastern Ukraine, which have since grown into a small but savage war, in which hundreds of civilians are believed to have died, often at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces.

The Laws of War explained

Whose fault is this?

This is a simple matter of the normal rules of engagement between countries. The nation which first unleashes violence, and which - by any means - forces its power into disputed, non-aligned or neutral territory is a) the aggressor. So that b) it has licensed matching behaviour by its opponent, and c) is ultimatelyresponsible for the later acts of violence which take place because armed conflict has begun.

Arithmetic, geometry and geography all show that the EU began this conflict by its open encouragement of unconstitutional lawlessness in Kiev.

I am, by the way, seeking details of civilian deaths and injuries in this war so far, from the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, the nearest we have to an impartial observer in this zone). A figure of 250 deaths in the Lugansk region has been suggested, but my e-mails to the OSCE have not yet been answered and I have not yet been able to confirm its origin.

For a little background to this I refer readers to a publication that cannot be accessed online except via paywall, but which I have here in front of me .

Funnelling Euros to Kiev – and groundwork in Brussels

It is the American Spectator, a magazine for which I sometimes write, and it appears in an article (July/August issue, pp 28-30), broadly sympathetic to the Euromaidan and Ukraine’s alignment with the EU, by Matthew Omolesky

In his sometimes lyrical article, Mr Omolesky refers to a 2004 address to the European Parliament by the Ukrainian writer Yuri Andrukhovych ‘Europe is waiting for us, it cannot endure without us… Europe will not continue to be in all its fullness without Ukraine.’

Mr Omolesky says ‘Some might take issue with the rather grandiose claim that Europe cannot endure without Ukraine, but the European Union has long had designs on it. Brussels funnelled some 389 million Euros to Ukraine between 2011 and 2013 alone and distributions were made to a host of civil-society NGOs…

...The 2014 protests, touched off by Yanukovych’s rejection of a European Union association deal, constitute the natural and immediate consequence of groundwork undertaken in Brussels, much to the Kremlin’s chagrin’.

Why Ukraine really, really matters to the USA

It’s useful, at this point, to recall words written by Zbigniew Brzezinski( Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, and the unsung architect of Moscow’s doomed intervention and eventual downfall in Afghanistan. He wrote in his 1997 book ‘The Grand Chessboard’ : ‘Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’

‘However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.’

Now do you see why this might be important?

Pay Attention at the Back!

I have attempted some brief history lessons about this interesting, much-contested this region here before,

…though some of the class seem to have been looking out of the window at the time.

But if you look you will find that the real, dangerous and decisive battles for territory between Berlin and Moscow (in 1914-18 with Vienna fighting alongside Berlin) took place precisely in this region. Distracted by our own narrow obsession with the Western Front, most British and American people are pitifully unaware of this aspect of both World Wars.

If you don’t know what happened at the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, if you have never heard of Stepan Bandera, if you don’t know what Lemberg is now called or how many countries it has been in since 1914, then you need to know. Once you do, you will understand that we see here the re-ignition of one of the great disputes of modern Europe. That is why it is so dangerous, and above all so dangerous to be rushed into hostile hysteria.

Sponsoring Terrorism

And now we come to the heart of the dispute. The new Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, has attracted some attention by saying that President Putin is ‘sponsoring terrorism’ .

Things aren’t always as they appear

I think he got carried away. I have known Mr Fallon, a funny, clever, enjoyably blunt politician, since I reported on the 1983 Darlington by-election which he lost (to the great grief of the Labour Party’s right wing, who had secretly wanted their own side to lose so that they could stage a putsch against Michael Foot and install Denis Healey as leader instead).

Labour unexpectedly won because the Social Democrat candidate’s vote collapsed after he was shown up on TV as embarrassingly inexperienced. So it was a good lesson, for all involved, in the difference between appearance and reality, and the importance of unintended consequences.

A misplaced accusation

The accusation of sponsoring terror is wrong in a number of ways.

Most importantly, it mistakes the nature of the outrage. The need to guard myself against lying and slanderous misrepresentation means this will take a little longer than it should in a civilized debate. The destruction of the Malaysian airliner and the killing of those aboard was a foul and inexcusable action. But there is no evidence that the culprits, whoever they may have been, intended to hit a civil airliner and kill its passengers. Such an action would serve no purpose for any conceivable culprit.

It is most likely that they believed their target was a Ukrainian military aeroplane.

Terrorists, by contrast, have more than once deliberately killed airline passengers, or other non-combatant innocents in large numbers, in the belief (sadly often justified) that it will advance their cause. Men who planned and executed such outrages have lived to become ‘statesmen’ , welcomed in the halls of diplomacy. Or their chiefs and backers have lived to see their objective obtained as a result of the fear and horror engendered by the action.

The Ukrainian government, understandably, has milked the outrage for all it is worth, and introduced the word ‘terrorist’ into the discussion at the earliest moment, In fact, it has long been using this word to describe the anti-Kiev separatists against which Ukraine has been fighting a bitter war for some months. In general, impartial media have declined to follow the lead set by Kiev. Presumably this is because they regard the word as contentious in this case, raising ( as it does) questions about the legitimacy of the Kiev government itself, and questions about the methods adopted by the Ukrainian armed forces to put down the rebels.

What does ‘terrorism’ mean?

The rebels have certainly behaved in disgraceful ways, but so have the Ukrainian forces, about whose exact composition, discipline and legality it would be interesting to know more. There are no saints in war. The Ukrainians appear to have been careless of civilian deaths in a way which (rightly) brings criticism on to the heads of the Israelis.

If the Israelis did this in Gaza, you’d rightly be against it

Ukrainian shells have landed on Russian territory with fatal effect, and Ukrainian forces are heavily suspect in the death of 11 civilians at Snizhne last week, when it is believed a block of flats was attacked from the air. There is some apprehension all round about how Ukrainian forces will avoid grave civilian casualties if , having recaptured Slavyansk with heavy use of artillery, they now use the same methods in densely-urban Donyetsk, (I have been there, I know what it’s like) the rebels’ main stronghold.

So far as I know, the rebels have not resorted to the methods generally associated with terrorism in Ireland and the Middle East – the car bomb, the hijack, the placing of bombs in bars and shopping areas. Though they have, disgracefully, held hostages.

I am not (despite what my attackers will claim) saying the rebels are nice. I am just saying that ‘terrorist’ is a contentious name for them.

Anyway, the destruction of the plane does not seem to me to be a terrorist act, not least because it so unlikely to have been deliberate.

A simple question

Here’s a simple question. Do you think Vladimir Putin was pleased or sorry when he learned of the shooting down of the airliner and the deaths of those involved?

Quite.

A terrorist would have been pleased. That is what they do.

Letting your bias close your mind to the truth

Now, for the sponsoring. I was very, very pro-American when, as a defence reporter back in 1988, I found myself writing about the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes ( and by the way, I mentioned the number of children on board in my earlier mention of this because it might not be known to modern readers, whereas the large number of children killed in this latest outrage is all too well-known. It is amazing how careful one must be to avoid accusations of bias).

In 1988, because of my then strongly pro-American leanings, I was anxious not to believe that the US Navy was really responsible for something so terrible, and so I was regrettably ready to believe all kinds of excuses and to sympathize (quite wrongly as I now think) with the commander of the Vincennes.

I’m still ashamed of that mistake. I hope I have learned from it. So though I am openly sympathetic to Russia in its quarrel with the EU and the US over the future of Ukraine, I can see that by far the most likely culprits for this crime are the Russian separatists, who have been encouraged, armed, equipped and assisted in many other ways by Russia. The same separatists have used surface-to-air missiles to bring down several Ukrainian military planes in the last few weeks, though this has not been widely reported, and most involved seem to regard it as falling within the laws of war.

Careful what you believe , and remember WMD.

Beyond that, I would like to know a lot more. The question of how the rebels acquired that particular surface-to-air missile seems not to be settled, though many write and speak as though it is. Their information comes from the same sort of sources who brought us WMD in Iraq, and who tried to panic us into backing islamic fanatics in Syria - and which need to be treated with the usual caution. It seems to me that loud declarations of blame and guilt should be held back until we know quite a bit more, and when I say ‘know’, I don’t mean from some partisan ‘dossier’.

I mentioned the Vincennes episode (and that of Siberian Air flight 1812) in my Sunday column not to excuse anyone, but to point out that the question of intent was important, and that similarly hideous incidents, quite unforgiveable and unbearable to those bereaved, have ended with muttered compromise rather than with loud declarations of clear guilt and strong justice. Before anyone draws himself up to his full height on this, whether in Britain (where as I recall Lady Thatcher was inclined to sympathize with the dilemma faced by the captain of the Vincennes) Ukraine or the USA, I think we should begin softly and get louder if the evidence justifies it, rather than start loud and then back off later.

For what purpose does it serve to heat the matter up? It is quite bad enough that, exactly a century since Europe rumbled towards the worst war of modern times, there is now a bloody territorial war raging on the same Russo-German faultline that opened up in the earthquake of 1914.

Whichever side you take, or if you take neither, there is no joy to be had in cranking up the passions and the rhetoric to the point where diplomatic relations are broken and combat more likely to continue.

And, seen through the stained and darkened lens of suspicion and rage, even the ghastly, pitiful events at the crash site can be turned from the more-than-sufficient horror which it already is, into another cause for war. Let us not be hurried down this slope, either. Not all the reporters at the scene, ready as they often are to join inthe lecturing, have behaved with perfect propriety.

The downed airliner and its slain passengers fell in the midst of a war zone, yet within the reach of electronic media. This has not happened before in modern times, so far as I know. No ordered or effective government controls the area. The eventual destination of the bodies and wreckage has become extremely sensitive because of the powerful involvement of propagandists.

Evidence is always better than unsupported claims

What passes for authority is a rabble of undisciplined men without experience, knowledge or tact. This is ghastly, but until there is actual evidence of looting, of deliberate theft or destruction of evidence, of desecration of the beloved dead, do you think it might be both wiser and kinder to refrain from too much attribution of guilt, crime and evil motives?

The ordinary fellow-creatures of ours who live in this place are , I have no doubt, at least as grieved and desolated by what they see around them as any of us would be. Most are traped in their homes by circumstances they hate. And in that impoverished and war-blackened place, they lack (as we would not) the costly apparatus of modern government to help them deal with it quickly and efficiently. Judge not, lest ye be judged. And if you hate the sight of torn human bodies, especially of the dead bodies of innocents, do and say nothing which might spread cruel red war deeper and further into our continent. We have been playing with danger quite enough already.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul P,

But the Cold War events you mention are not commensurate with those in Ukraine. The current conflict is a localised one which does not threaten anyone but those in (or over) the Ukraine. We have no pressing need to make Putin see the errors of his ways, and much to lose by trying very strenuously to do so - that is the point.

The stuff on meddling is just sophism. You might as well say that bad driving is ubiquitous, therefore why should I care about trying to drive as well as possible. International relations are always deeply imperfect, but Britain has some control over its own actions and it can decide to lessen its meddling.

My position is that Ukraine's wishes are mostly irrelevant. EU expansion is not necessarily as simple as you are suggesting. If you read a good history book on the EU, like The Great Deception that our host has recommended, you will see the EU makes ample use of deception as well as behind-the-scenes links and dealings to further its aims. It certainly is not so simple as saying that expansion process starts with transparent and democratic overtures to the masses. But, this is not relevant to my point.

My argument is simple:

We should not get involved in the Ukraine because it is not in our pressing interest. It is not in our pressing interest because it is a localised conflict which doesn't necessarily represent a dangerously (in terms of Britain or the world as a whole) expansionist Russian policy or the likelihood of setting any dangerous precedents for our interests or world peace and stability. And any moral concerns simply do not rise to the level that should see us interfere in the situation, especially considering the inevitable negative consequences for us and the region that such interference will cause.

"If you had read your own contributions before hitting "Post" you would have realised that the point that *YOU* were making was that it was "legitimate" for Muslims, Christians and UKIP to firebomb (OUR "illegitimate") Parliament and shoot (OUR "illegitimate") policemen because they disagreed with same-sex marriage or the EU."

I was making this point??? I think you are confusing me with another contributor.

The point you were making was......well I don't actually know the point you were making. By all means remind me, but keep to Ukraine in the context of Ukraine's 20yr campaign to join the EU, membership of which the EU required Ukraine to meet certain criteria, which Ukraine succeeded in meeting only recently, which herculean efforts Yanukovych tossed down the pan in exchange for thirty pieces of silver from the Russians. Begin with that and we have a conversation.

"We have already been through the foolishness of Britain and the West meddling in the Ukraine to try and force Putin to see the error of his ways."

When Stalin and his successors were required to see the errors of their ways ballistic missiles were put on standby, submarines put to sea, nuclear bombers flown out to strategic points and presidential fingers poised over red buttons. In 1962 Kruschev did see the error of his ways in a thermonuclear flash of the imagination, and the world breathed a sigh of post Armageddon-in-progress relief. Nevertheless the word on the улица was that Kruschev was mightily impressed.

How has Britain and the US forced Putin to see the error of his ways? Oligarchs denied London club membership. Girlfriends sent back home. Travel restrictions imposed on a handful of trillionaires. Arms exports to Russia "reviewed". Well that's going to shake things up a bit isn't it. Ought I to have kept the underground shelter?

mikebarnes
The black boxes can clearly remove a vast number of possible causes like aircraft failures. I would be a brave man to bet it wasn't a missile, the point being let's be 100% sure before we go any further. And of course going further is finding out who did it. Then going further would be possibly catching these people who did it and prosecuting them. But it appears the west in it's holier than thou fake outrage and fervour finds it expedient to bypass the nitty gritty stuff.
This is about removing Putin as he doesn't play ball with the globalists rather like the removal of Gadaffi who also stood in the way of the globalists.
I wonder if the Russian people are more savvy than the people of Iraq Iran etc.
If so then this will blow over as all tragedies do and Putin will remain where he is.

"The underlying point is the EU and the U.S have meddled in the Ukraine, escalating the crisis dramatically. Their intervention has led to the current chaos"

That may be so, but meddling is the stuff of foreign policy. Meddling we will have with us always, to paraphrase a Bronze Age gentleman of some renown. I have no problem with meddling as such. I do have a problem with the downing of passenger jets.

I don't doubt that, given the known sensitivity of Tsar Putin to Ukraine's desire to join the EU - a former satellite state lost too far - the EU could have played its hand more sensitively. The dealing with Yanukovych's summary casting aside of the will of the Ukrainian people, who after two decades of incrementally progressing negotiation were in sight of the prize - full membership of the EU, could have proceeded more diplomatically. Call it mischievous meddling if you wish. To my mind the EU simply went out of its depth in attempting to react to a popular uprising. They're just bureaucrats after all.

To say that it led to war (I presume you mean war when you say chaos) is misleadingly disingenuous. Yanukovych precipitated the crisis. Had he signed the agreement - again I stress this was the will of the people - there would have been no populist insurrection and no war - and presuming secession by the Russian-fancying group would have gone ahead but been less warlike, no downing of the Malaysian jet.

I wish in all these conversations you and others would acknowledge that Ukraine wished to join the EU, had been negotiating for two decades, and was within sight of realising its ambition when its leader about-turned and went over to the Russians. The EU's attempt to rescue the process can hardly be credited to warlike intent, as Mr Hitchens is trying to suggest. The EU meddled, yes, but it simply screwed up a bad situation where an equitable outcome might have been possible. It is pointless in my view to go into 'what ifs' too far.

The EU should now join the conciliation process and work towards peace in Ukraine and - realpolitik inevitably to the fore - assuage some of Putin's concerns. I'm willing to bet that ordinary Russians have been for some time eyeing the Emerald Eurocity glowing over the western horizon and wondering if they too should be filling in application forms. But not while Putin is Tsar.

Posted by: Paul P | 24 July 2014 at 11:25 AM
@Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth | 24 July 2014 at 10:47 AM
"Sorry Mr Bonington-Jagworth but I'm not getting into an endless trail of bickering, which you are now taking all over the place and beyond. We are now into Muslims, Christians and same-sex marriage, Ukip and the firebombing of policemen.
Stick with the points at issue - the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government and the justifiability of 'separatist' secession (or not), the right of the Ukrainian government to counter armed secession with its own military, the role of the Russians in sponsoring separatist terrorism, the crossing of the Malaysian jet Rubicon - and we can continue the conversation."

Too late: you've been endlessly bickering for ages.

And *I* *WAS* sticking to *YOUR* points.

If you had read your own contributions before hitting "Post" you would have realised that the point that *YOU* were making was that it was "legitimate" for Muslims, Christians and UKIP to firebomb (OUR "illegitimate") Parliament and shoot (OUR "illegitimate") policemen because they disagreed with same-sex marriage or the EU.

No wonder you're suddenly afraid of "getting into an endless trail of bickering" now that I've pointed out your mistake!

Mike B: Even if I were to concede for argument's sake that the EU and its proxies played no role in the violent overthrow of the legitimate elected government in Kiev (and I don't concede this) it still wouldn't invalidate PH's statement that the EU moved into Ukraine. Pro-EU-ers here and elsewhere habitually refer to the EU as if it were some intensely desirable, but very self-contained woman, placidly indifferent to her many suitors. In reality campaigns to join the EU in aspirant states are never spontaneous, and always involve much arm-twisting, lobbying, networking, cajoling etc (I'm trying to use morally neutral terms here), much of which is instigated by the EU itself.

I'm no fan of Putin - I regard him as at best a lesser evil. Like Mrs Thatcher he has gone along with much of the globalist agenda, and like her he now finds himself targeted because he won't go the whole hog. He made the disastrous decision to back the western sponsored no fly zone over Libya (really a pretext to bomb that country into submission) but a few months later refused to go along with similar attacks on Syria. That's when the western media hate campaign against him really began in earnest.

Russian forces were in Crimea prior to the violent coup in Kiev. Far from being belligerent over this coup, Putin was obviously extremely fearful about confronting the West, but came under intense pressure at home to guarantee the protection of Crimeans who wanted no part of the new illegal, violently anti-Russian regime. Given the massive violence inflicted on eastern Ukraine by Kiev (and largely ignored by the western media) who, with hindsight ,could blame them?

Oh, and I don't understand why Putin needs to adopt foreign policy free of threats, bullying, and force, if you mean in a prudential and not a moral sense. I severely doubt the future will be lacking in realpolitik.

We have already been through the foolishness of Britain and the West meddling in the Ukraine to try and force Putin to see the error of his ways.

It might be routinely meddlesome for contemporary Western foreign policy, but there is nothing inevitable about it. It would be quite possible for Britain to have a foreign policy better tailored to our actual close national interests.

The underlying point is the EU and the U.S have meddled in the Ukraine, escalating the crisis dramatically. Their intervention has led to the current chaos.

Sorry Mr Bonington-Jagworth but I'm not getting into an endless trail of bickering, which you are now taking all over the place and beyond. We are now into Muslims, Christians and same-sex marriage, Ukip and the firebombing of policemen.

Stick with the points at issue - the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government and the justifiability of 'separatist' secession (or not), the right of the Ukrainian government to counter armed secession with its own military, the role of the Russians in sponsoring separatist terrorism, the crossing of the Malaysian jet Rubicon - and we can continue the conversation.

Posted by: Paul P | 23 July 2014 at 10:51 PM:
@Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth | 23 July 2014 at 02:25 PM
"The legally elected president of the independent country, suspended talks about drawing closer to the EU last year."
Contravening the mandate on which the people had elected him.
"He then started similar negotiations with the EU for loans (possibly only as a bargaining ploy in the negotiations with Russia)."
Contravening the mandate on which the people had elected him......
Contravening the mandate on which the people had elected him......
A very LARGE number of the population of the independent country registered their discontent in the only way it can be registered in a repressive regime. They took to the streets and declared a democratic state of the streets......

So, as none of our identikit political parties have ever had a mandate for ever closer union, and you can't fight the party system democratically, I take it you would support the frustrated people who voted UKIP in the EU elections if they firebombed Parliament and shot policemen?

Ditto if any Muslims or Fundamentalist Christians (or just plain "bigots") did so because no one had a mandate (excuse the pun) for same sex marriage?!

PS You might not see this as Mr Hitchens seems to have a problem with posts highlighting the hypocrisy of same sex marriage, perhaps another remnant of his Socialist past he can't shake off, like four wheels bad, two wheels good, cattle trucks better.

"EU set out to suck Ukraine away from Russia, with the US supporting."

What's wrong with that? The EU has already 'sucked away' the other former Soviet satellite states; what's wrong with 'sucking away' one more? After all, Ukraine has been negotiating its 'sucking away' since 1994. Only recently has it been able to meet EU criteria for membership. That's not exactly aggressive sucking is it. Besides, if Russia wants them sucked back, it should field more attractive suckers.

"The EU and the West were certainly meddlesome and foolish, contributing to the escalation to the conflict."

Well maybe they did and maybe it did respectively. But I can't get too excited about it because politics *is* meddlesome by nature and frequently leads to conflicts of interest. The EU and the West were simply being routinely meddlesome, and no doubt mischievous. I am no fan of the EU from a political perspective either. The thing is fundamentally undemocratic if not anti-democratic. Nevertheless the correct response to EU meddling and mischief is counter-meddling and counter-mischief. The incorrect response is tanks and surface-to-air missiles. All the EU wants is markets and cheap labour. Yes the bureaucracy is mind-numbing and counter-productive, but notwithstanding the 'un-democracy' I have already spoken of, I don't detect surreptitious totalitarian dictatorship in the works.

When two American corporations go at each other with no quarter asked or given they don't resort to tanks and surface-to-air missiles. They will both resort to corruption of sorts in the way of purchasing influential politicians if they can, but usually the solution is to resort to a better and cheaper product. Mr Putin needs to adopt the same approach, and he'll win friends to boot - a 'win-win' as the Americans are wont to say. Put a better and cheaper product on the table and Mr Putin will get his customers back.

"The legally elected president of the independent country, suspended talks about drawing closer to the EU last year."

Contravening the mandate on which the people had elected him.

"He then started similar negotiations with the EU for loans (possibly only as a bargaining ploy in the negotiations with Russia)."

Contravening the mandate on which the people had elected him.

"The deal with the EU, as reported by the Western press, would have been disastrous for Ukraine."

The deal with the EU that had been in negotiation in various phases for decades was eagerly anticipated by Ukraine. By all accounts, mostly their own, it would have been that country's saving.

"The legally elected president of the independent country declined the EU's offer and tried to accept Russia's"

Contravening the mandate on which the people had elected him and cancelling decades of negotiation that had almost come to an agreeable conclusion after Ukraine had determined to meet final EU criteria for membership.

"SOME of the population of the independent country rebelled against their legally elected President, fire bombed and shot the police, and overthrew their legally elected President in a bloody coup."

A very LARGE number of the population of the independent country registered their discontent in the only way it can be registered in a repressive regime. They took to the streets and declared a democratic state of the streets. It had happened all across the Mediterranean - with RAF and French Air Force jets assisting with the street democracy, and where they didn't or couldn't Western governments egging the 'separatists', a.k.a. rebels, on to victory in the street polls. SOME of the population of the independent country in question decided that the street democracy was not for them and turned to hired-in tanks and surface-to-air missiles - which is about where we are today.

"The rebels were given aid, succour and encouragement by EU and US officials and politicians, including actually in the country, at the heart of the rebellion."

The large number of discontents whose EU mandate had been summarily tossed aside after decades of delicate negotiations, almost complete in Ukraine's favour, found support in the EU and US. My understanding from Ukraine news is that the majority of Western Ukraine's population feel bonded in perpetuity with the EU and the US for their unflinching support. When this thing eventually settles, as in due course it surely will, we will have a friend forever in Ukraine.

"Some of the rest of the population (with links to Russia) had a counter-revolution against the illegally installed "President" "

Some of the rest of the population (with links to Russia) decided to secede from the Ukrainian body-politic and set up a separate state with a Russian electing himself leader. This illegal enterprise was sponsored by Russia which sent in its own military personnel and equipment to lend hard endorsement to that sponsorship. And then a Malaysian jet was shot down.

Mr B says :'The only Russian military presence in Crimea prior to the crisis was the Black Sea fleet as per an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The ground troops were sent subsequently, as even Mr Putin has now admitted. '
This is not quite right. The Black Sea Fleet was and is accompanied and supported by quite large numbers of naval infantry and air force personnel, who were included in the agreement and whose presence in Crimea was mutually agreed.

I don't think I was nit picking in my comments on Mr Hitchens's post. His use of the term "the EU's move into Ukraine" was inaccurate, suggested some kind of physical imposition on that country and needed to be refuted.

The only Russian military presence in Crimea prior to the crisis was the Black Sea fleet as per an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The ground troops were sent subsequently, as even Mr Putin has now admitted.

I assure you that I am not beholden to what the western media say, but look at the weight of evidence. Your faith in the word of Vladimir Putin, however, appears steadfast.

"I think it's correct that the United States did not 'declare war' on Iraq."

Well I think some sort of declaration (in a manner of speaking) took place, but I'm bound to acknowledge, as Mr Baker points out below (@John Baker | 23 July 2014 at 02:39 PM), that wars no longer do seem to be declared - a chivalric anachronism in the modern era it turns out. Instead bombing simply commences, condemnations of the 'deplorable action' rebound round the world, the UN calls for a cease-fire and the pope calls for peace, all of which are routinely ignored by the bombing agency, as the 'deplorers' know they will be.

So given the unfairness of the council tax in my area, all one need do is declare oneself a 'separatist', start killing people and downing planes, and all of a sudden one is a soldier in a war zone entitled to forgiveness for making understandable mistakes.

Someone on here quoted Humpty Dumpty's famous aphorism from Alice Through the Looking Glass: "Words mean what I choose them to mean". And so it is. There are no definitions anymore. We have in our own time seen definitions thrown out the window. It is the ongoing fashion. Marriage, for example, means anything you want it to mean. So why not war and war-zone and rebel and collateral damage, et al? And now we see mass-murder morphed into 'mistake'. Well that's okay then, it was a mistake. That's fine. Give the guy a medal and an honourable discharge. Maybe he just, oops, leaned his elbow on the firing button. It's the sort of thing anyone might do.

It *is* a very worrying development. RAF planes were sent over to bomb Libya. What fun, but no war was declared as I recall. And certainly no one asked me. So as I have already said, I am bound to acknowledge the passing of a more chivalric, if equally horrendous, age when you told the other fellow you were in a state of war with him and both agreed that the rules of peacetime acquaintenceship had changed for the time being.

@ Jerry Owen .
Good day Jerry .
My info is, two flight recorders are present .One records the cockpit voices plus any in house traffic from the internal intercoms .The second records all the flight systems that are deemed important . In the case of a missile attack . The only voice records would be those if a pilot saw the incoming missile. And that would be a split second
The second box would only show a sudden collapse of all the systems it records
The point being we know, or at least we think we know it was a missile attack. If that's the case then all the two recorders will give us is a sudden collapse of all the systems. Maybe its rate of descent. Whether civil aircraft radar is equipped to track incoming peril I have no idea. Its doubtful. but in todays climate perhaps they should.
What government will glean from them might well be embellished to suit their narrative. .But then we should be well aware of such a tactic.

BBC Radio 4 have just ran as headline news "Pro Russian seperatists discussed hiding the evidence" and then said "we do not know the source for this information", but "all the evidence still points to it being pro Russians".

This is outrageous. How can you run a headline story and not even know the source?

Mike B: It really won't do to pedantically nit-pick Hitchens' statements, while at the same time using very misleading language yourself. Russian troops did not "enter" Crimea - they were there already. And using the categorical word "undoubted" obliges the user, if he wishes to be taken seriously, to back up his statements with undisputed facts. Many folk, myself included, very much doubt that Russia has deployed military personnel in eastern Ukraine. It may or may not surprise you to learn that not everyone shares your apparent unqualified faith in everything the western mainstream media say in relation to this conflict.

We were subjected to a photograph by our warmongering media of a Russian separatist crouching down and holding a gold ring in his fingers. The outrage by media types including the LBC host O'Brien in condemning this man, shows that guilt and a partisan approach are well established in our media classes.
Could it not have been without being to gory that it was found on the ground the body it once having been on virtually non existent and he wished to log it as part of the evidence and clean up process? I could of course be wrong but if so then I could be just as easily right.
If the media are happy to be partisan and you believe all they tell you, then you are helping us down the road to war with your complacency and acceptance of what our rulers wish.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.